And I'm joined now by the former
Trump attorney general, Bill Barr.
His first reaction
since we have seen these new charges.
And thank you so much for being here, Mr.
Attorney General.
I mean, you've now read through this
and Dimond,
do you think it's a strong case
Yeah, I think it's a legitimate case.
I think
unlike the document case,
it's going to have issues of proof.
It's a more complicated case.
And I think
there are some downsides to it.
I think there were reasons
not to bring it.
I've said before I'm a little concerned
about the slippery slope of
criminalizing legitimate
political activity.
I'm worried about,
you know, moving in that direction.
And I'm also worried
about bringing this case
and the divisiveness that it will bring
by, you know,
highlighting the double standard
because at the same time,
this case is being brought,
you know, the department appears
to have dropped the ball on the Hunter
Biden investigation.
It could be very hard
to persuade
many Republicans
that this isn't political.
We'll talk about the Hunter
Biden investigation.
But I mean,
when you do look at the indictment,
do you do to get something
you would have brought? I think
I don't know if I
would have approved the indictment,
but in the sense I may have exercised
discretion and not gone forward
with the case.
I'm also concerned
about having this case
going on during the election
and diverting people's
attention from the issues
in the election.
I'm also worried about, you know,
what the impact is.
If there are acquittals
during during the campaign.
But as a legal matter,
I don't see a problem with
with the indictment.
I think that it's not an abuse.
The the Department of Justice
is not acting to weaponize the department
by proceeding
against the president for a conspiracy
to subvert
the electoral electoral process,
which is what Trump's
attorneys are saying.
And they're also saying
that he was just exercise
using his First Amendment right here.
Do you think that's
a valid argument in your view?
No, I really don't think
that's a valid argument.
You know, as the indictment
says, you know,
he they're not
attacking his First Amendment right.
He can say whatever he wants.
He can even lie.
He can even tell people that that the
the election was was stolen when he
when he knew better. But
that does not
protect you
from entering into a conspiracy
or conspiracies involved.
Speech and all fraud involved speech.
So, you know, free speech
doesn't give you the right to engage
in a fraudulent conspiracy.
The other thing that they're arguing,
including John
Laura Trump,
Trump's new attorney to me last night,
was that they were simply asking
the former vice
president Mike Pence to pause
on the counting of votes.
Mike Pence pushed back on that
today, said
that's not what they were asking him
to do.
Let's be clear on this point.
It wasn't just that
they asked for a pause.
The president
specifically asked me and his gaggle of
of crackpot
lawyers asked me
to literally reject votes
which would have resulted in
in the issue
being turned over to the House
of Representatives
and literally chaos would have ensued.
How strong of a witness
do you think he'll be against Trump
if he's called vice president?
I think he'll be a very strong witness.
You know, he's
you know, he has the highest integrity.
He's behaved with dignity
and propriety all the way through this.
You agree that they weren't
just asking him to pause
the counting on the votes.
They were asking him to overturn
the election.
I wasn't around.
But what I
and what I read in the indictment,
there was a discussion
and the president himself stressed
that he would prefer him just to accept
the votes in
the the
panels that were
pro-Trump, that it wasn't a question
of just buying time.
Yeah.
The other argument
that we're hearing is about
who Trump was listening to at this time.
Trump's attorney,
John Lauro, said this of John Eastman
Mr.
Trump had the advice of counsel.
Mr.
Eastman,
who was one of the most respected
constitutional scholars
in the United States,
giving him advice and guidance
He's citing John Eastman
as this constitutional scholar.
But we know in the indictment,
I mean, it says Trump
is ignoring your advice,
that of other senior Justice
Department officials
Pat Cipollone,
the White House counsel,
the director of national intelligence.
I mean, is it a credible defense
to say he was just listening
to John Eastman?
You know, I don't think that
that dog is going to hunt, as you say,
first, as the people
who had some knowledge of whether or not
there was fraud.
Everyone was telling them
that the election
was not stolen by fraud.
And then as to the issue
of what he could do
legally at that point,
he went through all the lawyer.
You know,
he wouldn't listen
to all the lawyers in the department
who in various departments
or the White House
that had those responsibilities
or his campaign,
he would search for a lawyer
who would give him the advice he wanted.
But I'm not even sure
you would characterize what Eastman
said as advice. I mean,
it'd be interesting to
see, but I interpret
some of what he was saying
essentially was,
well, you know, it's unclear here
and you can make this argument.
I'm not saying the courts would accept it
and so forth.
And you act on that at your own hazard.
Also, I don't think this defense of
advice of counsel is going to go forward,
because I think the president
would have to get on the stand
and subject himself to cross-examination
in order to raise that.
And he'd also have to waive
attorney client privilege.
And what would happen
if he got on the stand?
I think I think not.
Look,
it would not come out very well for him.
You think it would hurt him?
Oh, yes. Yes.
Why do you think that?
Well, because I think he'd be subject
to a very skilled cross-examination.
And I
doubt he remembers
all the different versions of events he's
given over the last few years.
Do you think he knew that
he lost the election?
Do I personally believe that?
Yeah. At first I wasn't sure.
But I have come to believe
that he knew
well that he had lost the election.
And
now what I think is important is
the government
has assumed
the burden of proving that the government
in their indictment
takes the position
that he had actual knowledge that he had
lost the election
and the election was
stolen through fraud.
And they're gonna have to prove
that beyond a reasonable doubt,
which is a high bar.
Of course it's a high bar.
Now, that leads me to believe
that they
we're only seeing
a tip of the iceberg on this.
Do you think Jack Smith owes more?
Oh, yes,
I would believe he has a lot more.
And that's one of the things
that impressed me about the indictment.
It was very spare
And there were a lot of things
he could have said in there.
And I think there's a lot more to come.
And I think they have a lot more evidence
as to President Trump state of mind.
You said you've come around
to the idea that you do think
he knew that he lost. Why?
Why have you come around to that?
Number one,
comments from people like Bannon and
Stone before the election
saying that he was going to
he was going to claim
it was stolen if he
if he was falling behind
on election night
and that that was the plan of action.
I find those statements very troubling.
And then you see that he does
that on election night.
And then the evidence
that has come out since that,
you know, the press reports and the indictment and
and his lack of curiosity
as to what the actual facts were
just me.
That's my personal opinion.
And we'll see
if the government can prove it
beyond a reasonable doubt.
You spoke to the January
six congressional committee.
Have you talked to Jack
Smith's investigators?
I'm not going to get into that
Okay.
You came out on December 1st.
You were there on election night,
and you said that
the Justice Department had uncovered
no voting fraud.
On a scale of
what would have changed
the outcome of the election.
When you look back on that time period
from the election to December 1st,
do you ever wish that
you would come out sooner
and spoken up sooner?
Not at all.
Because if I had come out
and shot from the hip
without doing some due diligence
and making sure I understood
what the claims were
and that I knew the facts,
and if I turned out to be wrong
without doing due
diligence, I think that would have been
a disaster. For the country.
So I had to get
I had to do due diligence.
Well, the allegations
kept on changing from day to day
and were very frequently specific
you know, a
truck driver took so many ballots
from here to there.
And you interviewed that truck driver.
Well, I didn't, but the department.
Department did. Yeah.
So we were chasing down
all of these things
and I wanted to make sure that the major
allegations were looked at
and that I had a good sense
of what happened.
I also wanted to analyze
the votes
themselves and see, you know,
how the voting patterns
were in those states.
Not only did
we not find any
fraud of that magnitude,
but in the states
and when you actually
looked at the votes,
they were very clear to me why he lost.
He ran
as the weakest person
on the Republican ticket.
Like in Pennsylvania,
he came in
60,000 votes below the Republican ticket.
So he's losing Republican votes.
He lost at least
75,000 Republican votes in Arizona.
And so, you know, to me, there was no
and these were
these were the
the female voters in the suburbs
that were Republicans.
These were the independents
in the suburbs.
That ordinarily would vote Republican.
So I didn't think there was a mystery
as to why he lost you,
because it was in areas
that he was underperforming
with his attorney predict
who would take nine months to a year
or two to try this case.
Do you think
a good, solid defense
team could get it done
before the 20, 24 election?
I think it all depends
on the judge
and I think my impression is
this judge may want to move it along.
And so
they'll have to be ready to try the case
when she's ready to try the case.
But do you think the American people
Was it in
the American people's best interest
to have this educated
adjudicated
before the 20,
24 election happened
before they cast their ballots?
Well, the paramount question
has to be fairness
to the
to the defendants
of fairness of the process.
And I think it goes
I think there are arguments
to be made both ways
as to
whether it should be first
or whether it should come afterwards,
of course.
If he's elected president,
then coming afterwards,
you know, it would be meaningless
because you believe he tried to
to essentially either
get rid of it or pardon himself.
Do you think this entire indictment
for January six could have been avoided?
Is this something of his own making?
You know,
I don't
think that,
you know, this is an issue of his victimization.
I think he brought this on himself.
This is one of the reasons
I oppose him
for the Republican nomination,
because he has this penchant
for engaging in these reckless acts
that create these calamitous situations
and then undercut the cause
he is supposed to be leading.
And this is a perfect example of it.